Better test bat: Dravid vs Sangakkara

[Silver Silva]

There are arguments for both and no wrong answer, but I don't think including Pakistan would particularly shift the balance in Sangakkara's favour. Dravid made overseas hundreds against Shoaib and Asif. Dravid dominated in Pakistan. Sanga just played in UAE unlike Dravid.

Kumar Sangakkara has dominated in Pakistan, he was only 24 years old when he smashed a double hundred at Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore in 2002 , I think it was 220/230 runs and prime Shoaib Akthar was playing in that match and he absolutely pummeled Akthar , Waqar Younis , Abdul Razzaq and Afridi especially.

Shoaib Akthar conceded like 100+ runs in 25 overs so Sanga had no problems with Shoaib ..
That was not even prime Sangakkara, the crazy selectors had him keeping wicket and batting at No.3 ..

The only other time he faced Akthar was in 2005 in Faislabad , he failed in the first innings but got a half century in the second innings and it didn't matter cause Sri Lanka won by over 200 runs ..

Sanga also has 2 other hundreds in Pakistan . 138 at the National stadium in Karachi , and again another test hundred at Gadaffi stadium in 09 ..

As for Mohammad Asif well his best year bowling average wise was in 2006 he averaged 18 with the ball that year , Sangakkara faced him in Sri Lanka , Mohammad Asif averaged under 20 with the ball in that series but Sangakkara still dominated him, he smashed 185 in Colombo , and in the second test in Kandy where Asif got a ten-for , Sangakkara made 79 off 98 balls in the first innings .. This also was not prime Sangakkara he was still keeping wickets and batting in the top 3 in fact he even opened in Kandy ..

So Sangakkara has pedigree against the two bowlers you mentioned that Dravid faced.

 

[BazBall21]

Kumar Sangakkara has dominated in Pakistan, he was only 24 years old when he smashed a double hundred at Gaddafi Stadium in Lahore in 2002 , I think it was 220/230 runs and prime Shoaib Akthar was playing in that match and he absolutely pummeled Akthar , Waqar Younis , Abdul Razzaq and Afridi especially.

Shoaib Akthar conceded like 100+ runs in 25 overs so Sanga had no problems with Shoaib ..
That was not even prime Sangakkara, the crazy selectors had him keeping wicket and batting at No.3 ..

The only other time he faced Akthar was in 2005 in Faislabad , he failed in the first innings but got a half century in the second innings and it didn't matter cause Sri Lanka won by over 200 runs ..

Sanga also has 2 other hundreds in Pakistan . 138 at the National stadium in Karachi , and again another test hundred at Gadaffi stadium in 09 ..

As for Mohammad Asif well his best year bowling average wise was in 2006 , Sangakkara faced him in Sri Lanka that year ...Asif averaged under 20 with the ball in that series but Sangakkara still dominated him, he smashed 185 in Colombo , and in the second test in Kandy where Asif got a ten-for , Sangakkara made 79 off 98 balls in the first innings .. This also was not prime Sangakkara he was still keeping wickets and batting in the top 3 in fact he even opened in Kandy ..

So Sangakkara has pedigree against the two bowlers you mentioned that Dravid faced.

Yeah for sure. Sangakkara was outstanding against Pakistan. Had success against Akhtar, Asif, Ajmal and has robust averages in both Pakistan and UAE. Removing Pakistan or including Pakistan doesn't really affect this.

 

[Thala_0710]

I'd go with Dravid, was too good away from home in challenging conditions for the first decade of his career

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'd go with Dravid, was too good away from home in challenging conditions for the first decade of his career

Relatively sucked in SA, SL and to an extent Australia though.

 

[Thala_0710]

Relatively sucked in SA, SL and to an extent Australia though.

The same can be said for Sanga in IND, SA and ENG though. In AUS Dravid had multiple match winning knocks for IND, so won't really call him poor there. He wasn't the best in SA, SL I agree. Sanga was a better player of spin and and seam/bounce while Dravid was far ahead in playing swing. Sanga was much more easy on the eye but just Dravid's importance in away wins and overall performance in tough conditions wins it for me

 

[OverratedSanity]

Relatively sucked in SA, SL and to an extent Australia though.

Definitely wouldn't consider Australia a failure. Had one huge tour and a couple of excellent gritty knocks on 08. Wouldn't classify him as great in Australia or anything but an easy passing grade. He sucked in SA and SL definitely but atleast had a great tour vs Donald/pollock and had one 4th innings classic vs murali in a famous win on a turner.

Would go sanga > dravid overall but dravid> sanga outside asia tbh mostly due to sample size issues.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The same can be said for Sanga in IND, SA and ENG though. In AUS Dravid had multiple match winning knocks for IND, so won't really call him poor there. He wasn't the best in SA, SL I agree. Sanga was a better player of spin and and seam/bounce while Dravid was far ahead in playing swing. Sanga was much more easy on the eye but just Dravid's importance in away wins and overall performance in tough conditions wins it for me

Dravid has a single century in Australia (a notout double) and that in a very high yielding tour (averaged 100 odd) on absolute roads missing McWarne. Sure, it was Very important, as India drew the series. But the runs were relatively easy, and his record outside of that tour is really lacking. It's still close between these two though, really close. But Sangakkara averages 65 while not keeping for 85 Tests, and has a very fair distribution of runs everywhere. That puts him ahead imo.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Definitely wouldn't consider Australia a failure. Had one huge tour and a couple of excellent gritty knocks on 08. Wouldn't classify him as great in Australia or anything but an easy passing grade. He sucked in SA and SL definitely but atleast had a great tour vs Donald/pollock and had one 4th innings classic vs murali in a famous win on a turner.

Would go sanga > dravid overall but dravid> sanga outside asia tbh mostly due to sample size issues.

Honestly, I would also go Dravid>Sangakkara outside Asia, mostly for his performances in England and WI. Re Australia, those runs were very important, but a little soft and he mostly was a failure without that tour. But yeah, probably should not include Australia (that's why said relatively).

 

[Thala_0710]

Dravid has a single century in Australia (a notout double) and that in a very high yielding tour (averaged 100 odd) on absolute roads missing McWarne. Sure, it was Very important, as India drew the series. But the runs were relatively easy, and his record outside of that tour is really lacking. It's still close between these two though, really close. But Sangakkara averages 65 while not keeping for 85 Tests, and has a very fair distribution of runs everywhere. That puts him ahead imo.

Fair enough but if you take a really deep dive into Sanga too, one would find much more of these "easy" runs imo. Somebody did a piece on this in some thread and while that was a bit exaggerated, it had a lot of merit in the sense that Sanga bashed a lot of teams when they weren't at their best/transition periods. There were a lot of soft runs against a lot of teams and its what I also felt watching him live. Sanga and Williamson now, go big against poor attacks better than almost anyone else, and while that is a good quality in itself, it doesn't put him above the likes of Dravid imo.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Fair enough but if you take a really deep dive into Sanga too, one would find much more of these "easy" runs imo. Somebody did a piece on this in some thread and while that was a bit exaggerated, it had a lot of merit in the sense that Sanga bashed a lot of teams when they weren't at their best/transition periods. There were a lot of soft runs against a lot of teams and its what I also felt watching him live. Sanga and Williamson now, go big against poor attacks better than almost anyone else, and while that is a good quality in itself, it doesn't put him above the likes of Dravid imo.

Fair enough. Sanga, Williamson and Ponting really did enjoyed good runs against weak attacks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm sorry, how were the 300 runs he scored at Adelaide soft? Find it totally ridiculous how people downplay it. He scored a double hundred from 80-4 with us trailing by almost 500 and then a 70 odd in a nervy runchase. It's the opposite of soft, those are extremely high pressure situation runs. Flat pitch sure but the attack even had two good bowlers in Gillespie and Macgill. It's an atg performance imo. It wasn't Brad Williams at both ends.

Would you consider Sanga's 192 in Australia soft? It was a great knock but it was a road and unlike dravid's innings, it was a hopeless situation with zero pressure because they never had a chance of winning.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm sorry, how were the 300 runs he scored at Adelaide soft? Find it totally ridiculous how people downplay it. He scored a double hundred from 80-4 with us trailing by almost 500 and then a 70 odd in a nearby runchase. It's the opposite of soft. Flat pitch sure but the attack even had two good bowlers in Gillespie and Macgill. It's an atg performance imo. It wasn't Brad Williams at both ends.

Would you consider Sanga's 192 in Australia soft? It was a great knock but it was a road and unlike dravid's innings, it was a hopeless situation with zero pressure because they never had a chance of winning.

Okay, sorry. I didn't exactly meant soft, the situation was there. I meant the pitches were flat and bowling attack lacking. Both Gillespie and MacGill averaged 50+ in that BGT. Kinda similar to Gavaskar's runs in 1971; match situations were tough and runs way too important for the series outcome, but pitches flat and bowlers weak. Probably should rate these innings higher. Will look into them.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Okay, sorry. I didn't exactly meant soft, the situation was there. I meant the pitches were flat and bowling attack lacking. Both Gillespie and MacGill averaged 50+ in that BGT.

Mate there's a lot of chicken and egg there. Gillespie and Macgill are both good bowlers. I really can't consider any attack with them in it "weak". Weak compared to McWarne,of course yes but that's just a relative thing compared to their Aus standards at the time.

Gavaskar 1971 in wi wasn't the same imo. That wi attack on paper was genuinely woeful by any standard, not just WI standards. That's the difference.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Mate there's a lot of chicken and egg there. Gillespie and Macgill are both good bowlers. I really can't consider any attack with them in it "weak". Weak compared to McWarne,of course yes but that's just a relative thing compared to their Aus standards at the time.

Gavaskar 1971 in wi wasn't the same imo. That wi attack on paper was genuinely woeful by any standard, not just WI standards. That's the difference.

I think you are overhyping Gillespie and MacGill and not looking at the most important thing, how they performed in that series? And the answer, very poorly. MacGill atleast got those wickets, but went at 50+, and Gillespie also can't be called much better. Not the biggest fan of rating performances by just bowlers name over form.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oh I agree with that for sure. I consider both the bowler quality and series performance quality. The latter is important, I've made that argument here many times ,so fair enough.

But ignoring the former completely would lead to situations where youd point at Warne averaging 50+ in a series vs India as evidence that an attack with him in it was weak. And that's really not the case.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Oh I agree with that for sure. I consider both the bowler quality and series performance quality. The latter is important, I've made that argument here many times ,so fair enough.

But ignoring the former completely would lead to situations where youd point at Warne averaging 50+ in a series vs India as evidence that an attack with him in it was weak. And that's really not the case.

That's fair. I think the latter becomes more important for players with very varying degrees of performance over career or at the very/start end of them. Like for instance Johnson in 2013 and hin in 2017 were two completely different quality of challenge. Or for instance, re 1971 WI; Gibbs actually played a single match and was dropped. I think I myself am susceptible to make the claim that with Gibbs that attack would had been stronger; but apparently the selectors thought otherwise.

 

[sayon basak]

Much closer than the poll suggests actually. Could've gone any way.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sanga without gloves is a massive, massive batsman.

Obviously I don't completely discount what he did with the gloves on in evaluating him, as I'm sure he would have improved batting anyway even if he kept them on and besides, he was the batsman with the career he had, not something else fictional. Still I can't help but look at that era of his batting and find it at or near the very best (besides Bradman).

 

[kyear2]

Fair enough. Sanga, Williamson and Ponting really did enjoyed good runs against weak attacks.

How did Punter get involved?

 

[capt_Luffy]

How did Punter get involved?

By the way Sangakkara and Williamson did..... An example of a player who cashed on in a period of mid bowling and flat pitches.